Sheehan v. CDCR - Jamestown et al

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING 18 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Denial of Plaintiff's 14 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/1/2013. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RANDALL LEE SHEEHAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
CDCR-JAMESTOWN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-02060-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DENIAL
OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
(ECF Nos. 14, 18)

17

Plaintiff Randall Lee Sheehan is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

18

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion

19

requesting a court order to restrain CDCR retaliation. (ECF No. 14.)
On May 21, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations that Plaintiff’s

20
21

motion to prevent future retaliation by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at

22

Corcoran State Prison be denied without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.1 (ECF No. 18.) The

23

findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections to the

24

findings and recommendations must be filed within thirty days. On June 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed 8

25
26
27
28

1

The findings and recommendations included two incorrect references to the date that Plaintiff filed his motion for
relief, i.e. April 18, 2013, and November 1, 2012. (ECF No. 18, pp. 1, 2.) However, the findings and recommendations
correctly identified both the docket number and substance of Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 18, p. 1.) There is no indication
that Plaintiff was prejudiced by the typographical errors because Plaintiff has not filed any other motions for preliminary
injunctive relief in this action.

1

1

pages of written and typed objections, along with exhibits. His total filing exceeded 100 pages. (ECF

2

No. 19.)
Plaintiff’s objections include a restatement of the findings and recommendations and several

3
4

pages of nonsensical paragraphs. Plaintiff’s written objections do not establish this court’s jurisdiction

5

to grant the preliminary injunctive relief that he requests against persons at Corcoran State Prison. At

6

this time, the court makes no determination regarding the merits of Plaintiff’s underlying complaint,

7

which was filed on November 1, 2012, and names Lt. E. Cervantes at CDCR-Jamestown.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

8
9

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections,

10

the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

11

analysis.

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1.

The findings and recommendations, issued on May 21, 2013, are adopted in full;

14

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed February 22, 2013, is DENIED

15

with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

16
17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

July 1, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

66h44d

24
25
26
27
28
2